As per [url=//fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=18780#18780]Jody's suggestion[/url], we're splitting the activism thread into five areas which are:
1. ONLINE: Distribution of materials through the Internet to get our message out there for the purpose of generating support at the grassroots level (through blogs, listservers, discussion groups on Etsy, eBay, posting iPetitions, etc.)
2. CONGRESS: Flooding our Congressional representatives with comments
3. CPSC: Flooding CPSC with comments
4. MEDIA: Generating media interest in our concerns
5. TRADE GROUPS: Working through and alongside professional trade organizations to get our message heard

Jody wrote:

Iíve seen a whole lot of good ideas on this thread on how to fight this thing. But, Iím finding it increasingly difficult to follow everyoneís efforts. Waging an effective battle requires strategy. To that end, Iíd like to recommend that we get a little more organized to increase our effectiveness.

<snipped> What Iím suggesting is to use separate threads on this forum much like you would create subcommittees under a Board. This way, when any of us completes a task such as contacting a specific media outlet, posting on a specific blog, etc., we can post to the appropriate thread. Likewise, when each of us is working on something, we can go straight to that thread to find out whatís been done so far so that no one ends up spinning their wheels. We have lots of energy and connections here Ė we need to use both very wisely to avoid burn out.

It occurs to me that we really need to target our concerns about this legislation to the audience we are appealing to. To that end, I am drafting different responses for us to send to different audiences.

CONGRESS: Our letter to send to Congressional representatives:
This is feel-good legislation, both among Congress and consumers, both of which are uneducated about its real cost to them and our economy as a whole. We have to be mindful that because this law was intended to provide greater protection for children, we must be very careful in our efforts to avoid the appearance that we care more about our pocketbooks than child safety. If this happens, we will lose any credibility we might be able to gain as we move forward in this thing.

Given this, Iím going to rewrite our letter to emphasize that greater protections for children are a good thing, but Congress wrote this law in such a way as to impose unintended and very negative consequences in numerous industry sectors while resulting in very little gains in child safety. The draft letter needs some balance.</snipped>

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting the legislation would increase federal revenues from civil penalties by $43 million over the 2009-2018 period. CBO estimates the act would not affect direct spending.

Not sure how it doesn't affect direct spending if they are increasing the budget from $80 to 136 million per year between now and 2013.

Also, CBO estimates

Quote:

Since 2001, civil penalties assessed by CPSC have averaged $4.9 million annually. The average penalty collected during that time was $470,000, or about 25 percent of the maximum amounts. About 20 percent of the penalties exceeded $1 million.

Based on an analysis of historical assessments, CBO expects that a small number of cases would be directly affected by the higher maximum penalty [of $15 million]. Specifically, only a few fines per year were assessed at more than 50 percent of the maximum amount. However, the fines collected over the past several years may have been constrained by the current-law limit. CBO expects that increasing the cap would change the dynamics of litigating and settling large cases and estimates that the average penalty for larger cases would eventually double, while the average penalty for smaller cases would be about 20 percent higher.

So, if you were planning to stay in business, Congress is looking at you like lead- and phthalate-spewing meat with wallets.

That's what I was thinking as I read about Walmart and the two other retailers returning all that merchandise to the suppliers before February 10th. What will they do when there is nothing on their shelves? Will the public then feel the strain? Or care? Will Walmart?

I wasn't the least bit surprised- but very dismayed- that Rick Wolberg's letter was "never received" by Dingell or Pelosi.

Great description, Eric. They seem as if they are already counting the money they will get from all these "lawsuits". Like sharks circling. What will government do when they can no longer drain the tax dollars out of the unemployed who once kept this country afloat?

And, what would happen if all the businesses that the CPSIA is gunning for during the first round of "examples" just threw up their hands and ceased the offending product line, entirely?

Yes, unemployment would rise. But, would that also drive the point home to the special interest groups when there was nothing for them to consume?

Should we give the unemployed folks the address of the nearest supporter in the envelope with their pinkslip explaining: "Call this person. I'm sure they've got either a room to spare or the answer to what you can do, now."

As you can tell, my cynicism is at an all-time high. I'm relatively certain it will remain at the 'orange' level for a while.

I love how they redefine penalties as "revenue" when the act clearly states the penalties are to pay for disposal and enforcement. Probably another way to "borrow" in the same way they borrowed from social security.

You know, I am certain that among the supporters of given special interest groups, there are manufacturers. However, like many DEs here (or on Etsy) formerly thought, they think they are not affected because they are "good" and using good processes and inputs. They cannot realize they are also affected. We need to get the message out that they are.

We need some research done. We need to discover which special interest groups lobbied for this. Once we know, we need to analyze their membership lists to find all the members who are manufacturers. Then we need to contact them to make sure they know they must also be compliant because I doubt they realize this will also put them out of business. Then we need to impress upon them to lobby the management of their special interest group that there are major problems and something needs to be done before it is too late.

Likewise, many members of these special interests groups are consumers themselves. Like schools and churches. How are they going to buy sports uniforms, sports equipment or school and educational products? What about artificial turf they use on playing fields? Those will cost millions to replace because my friend, those must meet phthalate standards. If they don't replace them, they can be sued; it's a matter of retroactive liability. And what of the costs to consumers? Just as our costs will dramatically increase, as will theirs and mostly because there will be very few companies left standing so the prices of goods will dramatically increase due to the increase of testing and the fact that there are no competing products in the marketplace.

Lastly, I don't know how it should be done but I think we need an orchestrated effort to report manufacturers no matter how small that they are in violation. It's nothing personal. But the point is, the sooner we can shut everybody down, the sooner the supply of goods is shut off to consumers and as such, the sooner they realize there is a problem. If goods are still trickling into the marketplace, it'll take longer for them to realize it. The thing about this law is that it's not the Feds who will do all the enforcement. No no, State Attorney's Generals are enjoined to enforce it. That means we don't have to rely on reporting violations to some huge central office in DC, nope, just your state capital's AG office. If producers realize they don't have to worry about the feds being overstretched but directly from their own state, it has more impact. Moreover, state governments should become concerned of the costs of enforcement at a time when they won't have the money to do it. As such, we need to start our own special interest group to promote aggressive enforcement of the law.

Law enforcement has a very effective means to get their wants across in salary disputes. They can't legally strike so previously, they just slacked off a bit. While it infuriated some, it wasn't as effective as a better tactic which was aggressive law enforcement. Police started writing tickets for the most minor infractions. Once people starting getting tickets for things you'd normally never get one for (like jaywalking, not in large cities where they actually do that), a lot more people got bent out of shape because more were affected with a work speed-up than a work slow-down. That is the same tack we need to take. It's nothing personal.

Another option would be for all manufacturers to just no support the US markets. For those of us where the US-based market is our sole source of revenue, it might be less effort and money to start exploring export.

Response from Representative Mike Simpson of Idaho. While he is concerned about overregulation and supports small businesses, he still voted for the darn thing. Anyway, I intend on writing to him again about the impact on small businesses in Idaho, especially since our small state only has a few major industries and relies heavily on small businesses for tax revenue.

Quote:

While reviewing this legislation, I carefully considered the negative impact of overregulation. Too often government involvement in private industry, in the form of overregulation and increased tax burdens, does more harm to our economy than good. Small businesses like yours and large corporations alike have a huge positive impact on Idahoís growing economy, and, while I recognize that there are times when the federal government has a role to play, I believe that the best environment for these businesses to flourish, grow, create jobs and serve their communities is created when they are left to their own innovative devices.

As a Member of Congress I will continue working to ensure that businesses have the freedom to make decisions that are good for their companies, our economy, and the livelihoods of Idahoans and their families. In doing so, I will keep the thoughts you have shared with me in mind.

She doesn't appear to be one of "us", but Nature's Child makes good points in this blog post.

Quote:

* For most products, testing of componsent materials instead of finished products would save millions of dollars in testing fees and make the law less burdensome on the small business owner.
* Explain that this law mandates unnecessary testing of materials, that by their very nature, are at no risk of contamination by lead and phthalates: specifically unadorned fabrics, sewing thread, paperunfinished wood, and wood finished with food-grade finishes (such as beeswax).
* Explain that this law is not compatible with international safety standards, such as the EU's EN71, that already impose even stricter limits that the new US standard on harmful chemicals in childrens' products. As a result, manufacturers of the world's safest toys would have to spend millions of dollars on redundant testing in order to continue selling their products in this country.
* Explain that as it stands, this part of the law will put thousands of small manufacturers out of business - hurting our economy and causing even more loan defaults.
* Explain that making the law retroactive would put millions of small independent children's stores out of business, as large portions of their inventory are defined as "banned hazardous substances" overnight - regardless of whether these products contain dangerous materials.
* Point out that requiring testing of finished products makes it impossible to legally sell handmade products for children. This removes consumer choice as well as devastating businesses that specialize in handmade items.
* Explain how offering consumer choices is going to be incredibly expensive - having to test every product over and over even when the materials are the same and only details such as size or fabric print change will make it too expensive for small businesses to carry a broad variety of products.
* Explain that you believe there are alternatives that are workable solutions and still protect kids.
* Explain that this rule favors those who manufacture in mass quantity and hurts smaller, more varied businesses. Grandma is going to be a felon if she sells baby items at craft fairs.

Let them know that you will be following up after the next hearing to talk further. Let them know that the law is going to hurt YOU as a consumer as well as any businesses you may have.

Offer some alternatives to help them out. No Congressperson is going to want to stand up and say, ďLetís make toys unsafe again!Ē If you offer them some workable ideas, you will make a lot more progress. Some alternatives that have been suggested:

* Exempt products made from materials that are very unlikely to contain lead - fabric, paper, wood, etc.
* Exempt categories of items such as books, unadorned textiles, or handmade items made in the USA and Canada.
* Exempt products from Canada or the EU that are already certified under standards that meet or exceed the CPSC standard.

She links to her own message, which is great, but we need in addition to that something more generic which can then be amended by each person with their personal details (where are you, what's the name of your business, how many do you employee).

Does anyone know of a site from which I can email multiple congress people (like the members of the subcommittee on commerce, trade, and consumer protection)?

I may also write physical letters, as I did to my reps, but I want to hit them before the week is out. I know the hearing has been canceled (anyone know why?), but at least the issue is on their minds this week.

Someone on Etsy has started a volunteer sign up to barage the House with calls about this on Wednesday. They are going to provide a script. Please go to this thread to sign up. If we all donate an hour that would be amazing!
http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=5945166